[Torg] States and Nations (Social Axiom, 3 of 8)

[Phil Dack]

Interesting summary. It's not worth arguing detail here! But what I would say is that it illustrates the interesting balance of aggregation and deconstructionism inherent in the social axiom - in order to generate efficiencies and protect the "rights" of individuals, the social axiom begins to allow larger and more complex social organisations. But the consequence is that as these organisations reach the maximum level of complexity, and as a cosm attains conformity of social practice, a new individualism emerges. This is exactly the trend that we're starting to see in Western democracies, whereby the state has become a cocoon in which individuals have the freedom to exist independently of the state, and goes some way to explaining the move from nationalism (individuals protect the state, because the state protects the individuals) to liberal* individualism (where individuals accept the state as a necessary evil, because it allows them the individual
 freedoms they crave, but don't necessarily see one state as superior to another and may well move freely from one such state to another).

Phil
*using liberal in the way we commonly use it in Europe, rather than the more pejorative way it appears to be used in the US (a view which may be unduly influenced by Jon Stewart, I confess, rather than academic study or personal experience!) 



----- Original Message ----
> From: Jones Jasyn <jasynj at gmail.com>
> To: Torg Torg <torg at justintimeadventures.com>
> Sent: Wed, 24 February, 2010 5:25:33
> Subject: [Torg] States and Nations (Social Axiom, 3 of 8)
> 
> I'm interjecting here, not because of information overload, but because, in 
> order to understand the next few entries, some explanation is required. I'm 
> going to keep this short and to the point.

(Note: It may not be evident 
> that the explanation below is accurate. It is. In fact, to the extent possible 
> given the extreme condensing and simplifying I'm doing, it's scholastically 
> accurate: this is the same information you'd get in a Political Science class or 
> other academic venue. Phrased differently, obviously. For those who already know 
> this material- Phil, I'm looking at you- feel free to skim or 
> skip.)

State

Some innovations were discovered by a specific person 
> and circulated around. Isaac Newton and calculus (or the other guy and 
> calculus). The Wright Brothers and the airplane. Thomas Edison and the light 
> bulb.

Some just sort of happened. One person or group began doing 
> something that worked, as well or better than the alternatives, and other people 
> adopted it. Years later, someone gave it a name and that's what we all call 
> it.

It's kind of like the growth of Grunge. A bunch of bands in Seattle 
> who played in common venues and listened to each other and swapped members came 
> up with a sound that was different from band to band, but all of the bands had 
> enough in common that people could recognize that this was a new thing. Someone 
> called it Grunge, and that's what everybody started calling it. After that: Gold 
> records, MTV Music Awards antics, pink dresses, and flowers.

Nearly all 
> advances in the Social axiom happened just like Grunge. One of these is "The 
> State."

A couple of dynasties in England and Spain got in pissing matches 
> with local nobles and the Catholic Church and grabbed power for themselves, 
> taking it away from the others. The fact that the leader of a country had 
> authority to do these things, and no one else did, was efficient. It allowed 
> their countries to do things more easily than everyone else. And, over the 
> course of years, all countries in Western Europe came to do things in much the 
> same way. In time, the specific powers the monarchs grabbed came to be seen not 
> as theirs, but as the government's. Whether the government was a king or a bunch 
> of rabble colonists, the government- called The State- had these powers and no 
> one else did. After that: colonialism, imperialism, conquest of the rest of the 
> world, exporting The State globally.

At some point, the State was 
> combined with another concept: the Nation.

Nation

In America, it 
> often happens that people discuss their ancestry. "I'm half-Dutch, on my 
> mother's side, and my Dad's Irish." "My grandmother was Native American, my 
> grandfather Italian, and my mom's French."

What does this mean? What does 
> it mean to be "half-Dutch"? Or "all-Dutch", for that matter?

It's 
> familial, obviously- if your parents are Italian, you're Italian. If you're 
> Italian, and your spouse's Italian, your kids are Italian. This implies a sort 
> of super-family, a sort of large family where everyone who's Italian is in some 
> sense related to one another or descended from common ancestors.

Context 
> switch. There used to be a country called Czechoslovakia, part of the Warsaw 
> Pact, a Soviet client state. After the Soviet Union ceased to exist, it became 
> independent and the citizens of the country got self-government. A couple of 
> years later, the country split in two, forming the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 
> One country for Czechs, one for Slovaks. Being a Czech was different from being 
> a Slovak.

Russia itself broke up, and the Ukraine became an independent 
> country. Being Ukrainian was different from being Russian (as people who played 
> Grand Theft Auto IV could tell you).

Yugoslavia broke up, into 6 
> different countries, of which Bosnia and Serbia got the most news coverage. 
> "Bosnians" and "Serbs" were different, and they wanted a different country. 
> More, the Bosnians only wanted other Bosnians in their country, and the Serbians 
> only wanted other Serbians.

So what is this? This sort of super-family 
> that means that Russians aren't Germans or Italians?

In technical terms, 
> it's called a Nation.

Nation-State

In Europe, around 1500 (or just 
> before), people began seeing themselves not in terms of localities or tribes, 
> but in terms of a Nation. A Nation is, in essence, a very large tribe; its 
> members are presumed (factually or not) to share a common ancestry, language, 
> history, and culture. Most nations arise from (or are seen as arising from) 
> agglomerations of multiple closely related tribes (such as the Gauls or Germanic 
> tribes).

At the same time, people were recognizing that this thing called 
> the State had happened. A set of beliefs emerged:

The job of a State was 
> to rule over a specific territory. Each nation needed its own State. It was 
> wrong, people came to believe, that one Nation should rule another. It was wrong 
> for one Nation to be split between two States.

So, each Nation should 
> have a territory that belonged to that Nation, and no one else. And each Nation 
> should have a State that governed that Nation and no one else. So, the French 
> people should live in France and be governed by a French state. Any other 
> situation was wrong.

There were exceptions, big and small. Americans 
> didn't have a Nation, they were (and are) polyglot, as is the United Kingdom. 
> Jews and Gypsies were Nations without a State. European empires ruled smaller 
> neighbors and distant lands. Despite these exceptions, much of Europe closely 
> resembled the nationalist ideal, at least among the major powers.

This 
> arrangement or custom was formalized in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (which 
> ended the 30 Years War). This created the State System (or international system) 
> and has been the basis of history and politics ever since.

Modern 
> Times

In many ways, we live in a post-national society, in the West. 
> Nearly all of us on the List- Aussies, Europeans, Americans, etc.- live in 
> societies where nationalism isn't encouraged or reinforced. It's hard to see 
> what the big deal was, or what a strong sense of National identity means to the 
> nationalist.

Nationalism taps into familial associations, the same ones 
> that tribal identities and "Don't say that about my mother!" come from. It gives 
> a sense of unity, of belonging to a group larger than one's self. People are 
> willing to sacrifice for their family, even to giving up their life. People love 
> their Nation, and are willing to give up their life for it. In virulent forms, 
> nationalism becomes a fount of racism and ethnic cleansing.

The strength 
> and enduring power of nationalist passions can be illustrated by giving some 
> example of their effects on history.

Nationalism and 
> History

Nationalism was what caused Prussia to unite the German states 
> under one government (later, Italy did the same thing). Nationalism- feelings of 
> national aspirations, which prompted people to rebel against empires- was the 
> proximate cause of WW1. Nationalism (re: Sudentenland) was the excuse for Nazi 
> conquests and, when Poland was conquered, the reason the Allies declared war. 
> Ghandi was expressing Indian nationalism, the feeling that India should be its 
> own country. As recently as 2006 people in Iraq were trying to form a nation out 
> of 3 separate groups, and were killing each other over this.

Then there's 
> the Basques, Northern Ireland, and Sri Lanka. Georgia (European, not American), 
> last summer. The Flemish and Walloons in Belgium today. "You can do it" in 
> Scotland some years ago. 

The United States was originally just that- a 
> union of separate countries. It wasn't until the end of the Civil War that 
> Americans began to view themselves as part of one Nation and one 
> country.

Since the 1500's, politics and all its trappings is the province 
> of the State. The exclusive subject of study for Political Science is the State. 
> (Foreign relations? Relations between states.) The concept of "International 
> Laws" presupposes the existence of the State.

The Nation-State system has 
> become so engrained in attitudes, that the word "Nation" now just means country, 
> and we have to go to some lengths to discuss its real (or historical) 
> meaning.

Virtues of Nation-States

This litany of wars doesn't mean 
> that nation-states were omni-malevolent. They are not a perfect institution, but 
> were better than those existing before them.

Jurisdictional conflicts 
> exist when two organizations claim jurisdiction over the same thing. Local 
> police versus the Feds, in every single U.S. cop show, sooner or 
> later.

Take plumbing, for example. If it fails in your building, who do 
> you go to? A good answer is "this one guy whose job it is to fix it. A bad 
> example is "two or three guys", each of whom might do it, or they might tell you 
> to call the other guy. And if the other guy says yes and begins work, the first 
> might come in a rip it all out.

Tech support for an ISP can be this way: 
> ISP says call computer manufacturer, manufacturer says call Microsoft, Microsoft 
> says to call the ISP.

So, instead of plumbing or internet connections, 
> imagine a jurisdictional conflict over who gets to charge you with a crime, 
> judge you and execute you. The local noble? The Church? The Crown? What if one 
> says yes but one says no? And what if the third claims the right to release 
> you?

Prior to the emergence of the state, territorial governance was a 
> morass of overlapping jurisdictional conflicts and power struggles. Wars were 
> fought to gain power, keep power, or gain independence from another's 
> power.

If power is up for grabs, and any one of a number of organizations 
> can legitimately grab it, then there is a double incentive to fight for it: you 
> might get it, and you can prevent rivals from doing so. This encourages 
> violence.
If only one institution can legitimately have that power, there is 
> nothing to fight for.

The State cleared all this mess up. No Church could 
> execute, only the State. No Noble could execute, only the State.

>From 
> ancient times, families would war on each other over matter of honor, land, 
> grievances, whatever. The rise of the State meant that no one could make war 
> other than the State, and the ability to make war was taken away from private 
> citizens (over the course of centuries).

Territorial borders were 
> delimited and given over to the governance of a State. If bandits raided from 
> another country, you could go to that State and demand they take care of the 
> problem, or risk war.

The State clarified which institutions have what 
> powers, what territories are governed by whom, and what means ought those 
> territories be governed by. It's evident how messy these issues are today. 
> Imagine what they were before the advent of the State.

The Future of the 
> Nation

Humans have a innate trait of dividing the world into Us (people 
> similar to me) and Them (everybody else). Much of the advances of the Social 
> axiom involve people accepting bigger and bigger groups as Us. To date, the 
> Nation is the largest "Us" humanity has achieved (bigger groups have been tried, 
> but this is the only one yet achieved).

In the future, bigger groups of 
> Us become possible, and a lot of "The Future" Social axiom deals with this 
> phenomenon.

Post Script

Just in case someone needs a technical 
> definition:

State

The State is that set of institutions* which 
> legitimately** govern*** a defined territory.

* Institution: An 
> organization of people that has a specific role in society.
** Legitimacy: Is 
> accepted as being valid. The state has to be accepted both by the citizens of 
> the state and by other states. Co-recognition of status between states is a key 
> component of the international system.
*** Govern: To create and enforce laws 
> and to formulate and carry out policy. The proper scope of State authority is a 
> matter of custom or norms.

In the context of the nation-state system, the 
> above definition has an added clause: The state governs on *behalf of the 
> nation.*
--
Jasyn Jones
jasynj (at) gmail (dot) com

"To strive, 
> to seek, to find, and not to yield."
Ulysses, Alfred Lord 
> Tennyson

Check out my Torg webpage, Storm 
> Knights:
web.me.com/stormknights/


_______________________________________________
Torg 
> mailing list
> href="mailto:Torg at justintimeadventures.com">Torg at justintimeadventures.com
> href="http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg" target=_blank 
> >http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg